Government's Stubborn Refusal to
Abandon Anti-Social Aims

- Enver Villamizar -

The Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne has proposed amendments to the School
Boards
Collective
Bargaining
Act
that governs
collective bargaining in K-12 education. Minister of Education Mitzie
Hunter claims the changes will "strengthen its successful model for
collective
bargaining in the education sector" by making it more "flexible,
transparent and consistent."

The claim that the model of negotiations is successful
and just needs to be strengthened hides the problems that have emerged
under the legislation as a result of its aims.
The legislation was supposed to overcome the crisis the
government had created when it resorted
to using
Bill 115, the Putting Students First
Act, to impose contracts
on teachers and education workers without their consent. However, the
push to formalize two-tiered bargaining with both a provincial and
local component has as one of its main aims to
undermine the role of local decision-making, especially by school
boards,
in education. This aim was reflected in recommendations from former TD
banker Don
Drummond and his Commission on the Reform of Public Services that was
established by the McGuinty Liberal government. The
Commission made sweeping proposals for how the government could
restructure all public services in a manner that would facilitate
freeing up billions
in public funds for handing over to the banks in the form of interest
on the debt and deficit and direct handouts to companies. In
particular, one
of Drummond's main preoccupations was that school boards had the
authority
to enter into agreements with teacher and education unions while it was
the province that was required to fund K-12 education as school boards
had lost the authority to raise taxes. As a result, school boards could
agree to terms with local teacher and education unions which would
require more funds to be invested in education, something the province
saw
as a problem for their determination to "restrain" spending on public
services in order to pay the rich. Establishing two
tiers of negotiations in K-12 education was a
mechanism to give the government more say over the direction of
education and
labour relations with those who provide it in order to achieve
anti-social aims.

Teachers and education workers and their unions are not
opposed to two-tiered bargaining so long as it is used to raise
standards of education across the country to the highest level.
However,
in practice the mechanism is being used by the government to try and
eliminate higher standards at the local level as the government pursues
its self-serving aims. As a result of the government sticking to its
aim of removing public funds from public education to
pay the rich, provincial bargaining legislation has not resolved any
problems and, in fact,
has created new ones.

The 2014 round of
negotiations, the first ever under the legislation, saw the province
once again use its
legislative majority to criminalize workers' strike action at the local
level.
The government passed back-to-work legislation against striking
teachers in
Durham, Rainbow District (Sudbury) and Peel. This was done just in case
the
Labour Relations Board -- which was hearing a complaint from the local
school boards at the time -- would not rule the strike to be in
violation of the new
legislation.
The Labour Relations Board let the government off the hook by ordering
the
teachers back to work on the basis that the local strike was
"contaminated" by
provincial issues based on spurious evidence that included slogans
written
on strikers' signs that raised issues being negotiated at the
provincial level --
a clear violation of their right to conscience. The Labour Relations
Board however
allowed the strike to resume after it was "cleansed" of provincial
issues, thus forcing
the government to use its back-to-work legislation. Under
the new two-tiered bargaining legislation, the use of dictate became
more egregious and
irrational as the provincial government used it to criminalize local
strike
actions.

The amendments now being tabled are coming as the
government wants to extend provincial collective agreements in the K-12
sector to 2019, well past the date of the next provincial election,
eliminating local collective bargaining. The government hopes to
achieve "labour peace" on the basis of suppressing workers' rights to
negotiate at the local level.[1]
Part of the amendments relate to allowing the extension; however, the
government is also using the opportunity to bring in other changes that
deal with how negotiations are to be conducted in the future,
concentrating more control over public education and those who deliver
and administer it in the hands of the executive of the Ontario
government.

Teachers and education workers should continue to demand
that the government back down on its attempts to
limit and eliminate local
say over education. Having a say over one's working conditions is a
fundamental right that belongs to workers by virtue of the work they
do.
In education
this say brings forward the objective problems in education including
those
facing the students who also
have a right to a say over their learning conditions. Locally
elected trustees as well as local school board administrators who often
come from teaching
are a link between the electorate in a community and the education
system. The further concentration of decision-making power away from
the
local to the
provincial level that is taking place today does not favour public
education,
but instead the private interests who want to
restructure education to free up public funds and to make it a source
of increased profits.

Note

Amendments Tabled

On February 21, Education Minister Mitzie Hunter tabled
Bill 92, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Amendment Act in
the
Legislature.
The
proposed
bill
would
amend
the
School
Boards
Collective Bargaining Act, the legislation that governs collective
bargaining in
the K-12 education sector. This Act was passed by the Liberals with the
support of the NDP in
2014 and requires two tiers of negotiations -- provincial and
local -- between
provincial unions, the government, school board and trustee
associations at the provincial level; and between local unions and
school
boards
at the local level for teachers. Prior to the passage of the Act
provincial-level negotiations
had been
voluntary for all staff, with local bargaining the norm. Under the new
legislation provincial bargaining remained voluntary for support staff
only.

The government indicates amendments to the Act will
include the
following provisions (notes in italics are from Ontario Political
Forum):

"Allowing collective agreements to be extended to
support improved flexibility for all parties."

This refers to permitting contract extensions.

"Ensuring parents and students are well-informed in
advance of labour disruption by requiring an additional five days'
notice for strikes and lock
outs in certain circumstances. This is in addition to five days of
notice already included in the Act."

This provision would require a union to
give five days' notice every time it seeks to escalate or to change its
strike actions.
Extending the notice period for such changes would give the government
more time to pass legislation imposing contracts.

"Requiring that the trustees' associations
clearly report on the public funds they receive, including salaries for
labour relations employees
exceeding $100,000, as a means to improve transparency."

Talk about transparency for the trustees'
associations is an attempt to present the government as a neutral body
between school board
associations and unions. In fact more and more the government and the
school board associations act as one in attacking public education and
those who provide it.

"Requiring participation for all education-sector unions
in central bargaining to ensure consistency across the province."

This relates to support staff bargaining units
within the different education unions who were not
forced under
the Act to negotiate at central tables, but could do so voluntarily.

"Ensuring that any new bargaining unit formed during the
term of a collective agreement is subject to the central terms
negotiated by its applicable
teachers' federations or education workers' unions. This supports
improved consistency and equity."

This would appear to eliminate local negotiations for
a
first
contract
for a
new
bargaining unit until 2019 at least, given that any such first
agreement must be
subject to central terms contained in the applicable extended agreement
which, if the current extensions are ratified, will exclude local
bargaining over the life of the agreement.

"Allowing the government or the applicable trustees'
association to get status updates on local bargaining and, if asked, to
assist with local
negotiations."

This indicates that the provincial government and
provincial trustees' associations want mechanisms to give themselves an
explicit role in
local negotiations between unions and school boards, albeit only if
asked. This suggests that school
boards will come under increasing pressure to submit to provincial
dictate first
voluntarily, and later as a requirement, if they refuse.

"Granting all parties the ability to file a complaint
with the Ontario Labour Relations Board to resolve conflicts between
central and local
agreements."

This relates to how contradictions in
language between central and local agreements are resolved.
How
such
contradictions
are
resolved,
and
according
to
what
parameters,
is
a
matter
of great importance as
the
government moves to eliminate any local arrangements which are of a
higher
standard than central agreements.

"Changing language from 'consent' to 'mutually
agreed' in certain areas where the trustees and the Crown engage in
joint decision-making."

This appears to be a change in language for how the
Minister of Education and trustees' associations work together in
preparation for and
in the midst of bargaining.

"Clarifying the Minister of Education's delegation
authority and the role of the Education Relations Commission."

The amendments would allow the Minister to delegate
their substantial arbitrary powers under the Education Act, especially
as it relates
to oversight of school boards, to anyone in the Ministry who would also
have the ability to sub-delegate those powers to someone else.

The Education Relations Commission was used by the
government during the last provincial round of negotiations to provide
anti-social justifications for the government to pass back-to-work
legislation against striking teachers in the Durham, Rainbow and Peel
district school boards. The government appointed body claimed that the
right to strike must be limited "to uphold the public interest." The
Commission's role is to "provide advice to the Lieutenant Governor in
Council as to whether the continuation of a strike by school board
employees or of a lock-out of school board employees will, in the
opinion of the Commission, place in jeopardy the successful completion
of courses of study by the affected pupils." That the government is now
"clarifying its role" in the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act
suggests it wants to use it in the future to justify limiting the right
to strike.SeeOntario
Political
Forum, May 28, 2015.

Positions of Unions

Canadian Union of Public
Employees

"If passed, the new legislation would take away the
rights of school board support workers to democratically determine
their participation in central
bargaining with the provincial government. Currently, education workers
represented by CUPE and other support staff unions may request to
participate
in central bargaining but are not mandated into the process."

"We have repeatedly shared with the government that, in
our view, this is not the part of the Act that needs an overhaul.
Legislating all education
workers into a central bargaining process with the provincial
government, is wrong. And, as previous successful rounds of bargaining
have proved,
completely unnecessary. In our view, if it ain't broke, why fix it?"
said Terri Preston, Chair of CUPE's Ontario School Board Coordinating
Committee.

"Respect for workers' rights to determine their
participation in the process, as currently provided by the Act, has
been fundamental to CUPE's support
for and participation in central bargaining with the provincial
government."

"Mandatory central bargaining is anti-democratic," said
Fred Hahn, President of CUPE Ontario. "We're not going to sit idly by
while this
government attempts to undermine our democratic right to free
collective bargaining. We've fought this before, and we'll fight this
again."

"CUPE has continuously made its concerns with this
change
known to the Ministry, through consultations and correspondence, and
calls on the
Minister to delete this change from the draft legislation before it
proceeds any further through the legislative process."

Ontario Secondary School
Teachers' Federation

"Although the Ontario Secondary School Teachers'
Federation (OSSTF/FEESO) participated in the consultations regarding
the proposed amendments,
it is obvious that the consultations were not taken seriously by the
government."

"There are a number of significant structural flaws in
the
current
legislation and OSSTF/FEESO made 11 recommendations to streamline and
strengthen the bargaining process. All were ignored, resulting in none
of
our issues being addressed and the process continuing to be lengthy and
unwieldy," said OSSTF/FEESO President Paul Elliott.

"These changes announced by the Minister do not improve
the legislation and do nothing to make the bargaining process more
efficient," concluded
Elliott.

Negotiations
in
K-12
Education

Status of Negotiations

A majority of members of the Ontario English Catholic
Teachers
Association, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and
the
Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens have
now ratified extension agreements. The agreements cannot yet come
into force as they are conditional upon the School Boards Collective
Bargaining Act being amended to make extending the term of a
collective
agreement legal, something currently illegal under the Act. The Elementary Teachers'
Federation of Ontario has been holding mass meetings, with ratification
votes on their tentative extension agreements for both
teachers/occasional teachers and support staff taking place from
February 27-March 1.

On February 23 the Minister of Education boasted that
the government had completed tentative labour agreements with "all
teachers and
education workers," in the province. This came as the government had
reached a tentative
agreement with provincial negotiators representing the provincial
executive of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF)
on an extension of their agreements. Showing the Minister's complete
disrespect for the
decision-making process of the unions and in particular the say of
locally elected officials in decision-making, the tentative agreements
had yet
to be approved by the union's local presidents and chief negotiators,
something that is required for it to be taken to the members for
consideration and voting.

In addition, the government announced that it had
reached
a tentative agreement "on remedy in respect of the Court's ruling on
the Putting
Students First Act, 2012" with OSSTF. This is the remedy which
was made
a matter of negotiation between the unions and the government
for the violation of workers' rights by the government during K-12
negotiations in 2012-13 which culminated in the imposition
of contracts using Bill 115, the Putting Students First Act.
The terms of the remedy have not been made public, however it is likely
now that
whatever OSSTF's provincial negotiators agreed to will be made the
template for other provincial unions by the government. It would be
laughable were it not so
serious that using one union to establish a template to impose on
others
is precisely what Bill 115 was used to do! This shows the necessity for
teachers and education workers to find ways to not permit their ranks
to be split by the government whose aim is to weaken and suppress their
unity in defence of their rights and the rights of all.

Our Working Conditions Are
Students' Learning Conditions!

- Laura Chesnik -

In mass meetings and in online fora teachers and
education workers in Ontario are arguing out how to affirm the right to
education in
the context of agreements between provincial education
unions and the Liberal government. One of the main issues being
discussed is the issue of the class size and composition. This goes to
the heart of the demand that governments affirm education as a right
and provide the working conditions and learning conditions which both
educators and students require to do their duty to society.

Significance of Class
Size and How It Is Regulated

For some time the government
of Ontario, like other provincial governments across the country, has
refused to address the demand for
real caps on the size of classes in elementary schools. In a few
grades,
"hard caps" that set
out the maximum number of students permitted in an individual class
do exist. In
others, such as junior and senior kindergarten, there are only limits
placed on the
class size average across an entire school board which can encompass
hundreds of schools.

The introduction of full day kindergarten (FDK) in
Ontario,
for example, was a positive development that was pushed for by the
people as a measure to expand public education. The Liberals have used
FDK to try to present themselves as
being for
the expansion of public education, yet they have refused to establish
the
working
and learning conditions in this area in particular that are required to
ensure the health and
well-being of
the students and the staff. Stories abound of unacceptably high noise
levels, high student-to-staff ratios, non-identified special needs for
students
without
adequate supports and various other health and safety issues that
come
with classes of over 30 children between the ages of three and six.
These
problems and the need
for real solutions are what is coming to the fore as teachers and
education workers argue out what to make of the tentative agreement
negotiated
between their provincial union and the Ontario government.

Education Is a Right, Not a
Policy Objective!

Teachers and education
workers start from the premise that education is a right
and that society is duty-bound to affirm this right as an investment in
its own future. Instead of affirming the right to
education, the government has made it a policy objective subject to
funding parameters which they decide in the context of an overall
program to use the public purse to pay the rich. In so
doing, they deprive the youth,
as well as those who provide education, of their rights based on claims
that there are not enough resources available, while this is not the
refrain when it comes to the demands of the monopolies. One of the ways
the right to education gets violated is through the use of school
board-wide averages and
exceptions to those averages for regulating class size. Instead of what
are called hard caps which set a firm standard for class size, the use
of averages permits widespread
variation in actual class sizes. In this way,
governments have
eliminated the human factor by reducing children and youth to numbers,
averages and funding units to be manipulated province-wide, across
school boards and even within a school so as to make do with dwindling
public resources.

All this is presented to those who deliver education as
something outside of their control, all to be determined by higher-ups.
Instead of
accepting this state of affairs, teachers and education workers are
bringing
forward the problems they are experiencing at the local level,
especially as concerns class sizes and composition, to argue
out what is needed in their classrooms and across their local school
boards. This is a matter that concerns everyone in Ontario and as such
everyone is encouraged to join in this important discussion.

For Your
Information

How Class Size Is Regulated

There are 76 school boards in Ontario made up of 31
English public, 29 English Catholic, four French public and eight
French Catholic
boards. There are also 10 school authorities that include four
geographically isolated boards and six hospital-based school
authorities. Ontario
also has one Provincial Schools Authority. All quotes below are taken
from Ontario Government Regulation 132/12: Class Sizes under the Education
Act.[1]

The regulation defines "class" in relation to elementary
schools as "a group of pupils who are scheduled to spend more than 50
per cent
of their instructional time together during the cycle that includes
October 31, but does not include a self-contained class established for
exceptional pupils."

Each board picks a date to determine its elementary
class sizes between September 1 and September 30. School boards must
then report
these numbers to the Ministry of Education by October 31. There is no
other date in a school year when boards report on elementary class
sizes, although class sizes can change during the year. Any new
students who move into a school past the reporting date would be
absorbed by that school without any staffing increases or the creation
of new classes.

Junior Kindergarten and
Kindergarten

The average class size in each school year of a board's
full day junior kindergarten and kindergarten classes is to be no
larger than 26. It
is important
to note that this is a board-wide average calculated based on all
classes in this division a board has in all its schools. It is arrived
at by dividing
the total number of pupils enrolled in full day junior kindergarten and
full day kindergarten classes in that board by the total number of full
day junior kindergarten and kindergarten classes in the
board.

Primary

In primary classes (grade 1-3) there is a class size
limit of 23 students. This is often called a "hard cap," meaning the
number of students
in each class is limited by a specific number rather than simply
contributing to a board-wide class size average. The regulation
governing these
grades further states: "In each school year, at least 90 per cent of
the classes described in section 4 shall have 20 or fewer pupils." The
20 or
fewer pupils is known as a "soft cap" given that up to 10 per cent of
classes
can have more than that number, up to a maximum of 23 which is the
"hard cap." Primary is the only division where a limit is placed on the
number of pupils who can be in individual classrooms. Class size for
all
other divisions is expressed as a school board-wide class size average.
School boards must comply with primary class size limits on the day of
reporting chosen by each board in September. The regulation is silent
about what is to happen after that point in the school year, should new
enrolments result in some classes having more than 23 students, or a
board having more than 10 per cent of its classes with over 20 students
in them. This would appear to be way to condone, if not force some
schools especially in urban areas, to violate the spirit, if not the
letter of
the regulation when it comes to class sizes.

Junior and Intermediate

For junior and intermediate elementary grades (grades
4-8) the regulation specifies that board-wide class size averages
must no greater than 24.5.
However, an
exception is made for 36 of the 72 school boards in Ontario for whom
the average has been set lower or higher than 24.5. In
the 36
boards named in the exception the grade 4-8 class size averages range
from 18.5 (Superior-Greenstone District School Board) to 26.4 (Avon
Maitland District School Board).[2]

Making average class size a board-wide parameter permits
some schools to have class sizes over 30 because that same board will
have other
schools where class sizes are smaller than the prescribed average.
Despite large class numbers in some schools, a school board would still
be in compliance with the average class size limit that applies to it
since
the average takes into account all classes in grades 4-8 of that school
board.
School boards can encompass vast geographical areas, including urban
and rural areas, meaning that small classes in its rural schools can
permit
(or force) a board to increase class sizes well above the average in
its urban schools since there are no hard caps in this division.

Students with Special
Needs

An issue that contributes to increased numbers of
students in an individual class, while maintaining an overall
board-wide class average
in grades 4-8, is the way the province has boards calculate
students with special needs in class sizes. When a student spends 50
per cent or more
of their
time outside of their home room class the student can be counted as
0.5 of a pupil in their home room. This occurs primarily with students
with special needs who can spend 50 per cent of their day in a
contained
classroom for students with special needs where there are dedicated
teachers and education workers often qualified in Special Education.
Classrooms housing programs for
exceptional pupils are not counted as a class and don't
contribute
to the board-wide average. In practical terms this means that
students with special needs who spend half their day in a home room and
half in a dedicated Special Education room are counted as "half a
student" for their home room according to government regulations. This
is another way that class sizes are increased above limits and
stipulated averages
based on the way students are viewed as funding units rather than human
beings.

Split Classes

Another issue that presents itself in elementary schools
is what the regulation refers to as mixed grades. Schools are forced in
some cases
to use split classes in order to maximize the sizes of classes and
teacher to student ratios because their staff allocations are based on
outdated
funding formulas rather than the actual human beings in the classes and
their objective needs.

If a school would otherwise exceed its class size limit
in a primary class, students above the limit can be moved into "mixed"
or "split" classes
which can combine two or even three smaller classes from different
grade levels. Schools are required to do this to maximize the
size
of classes and it is part of the way in which students are turned into
funding units and shuffled around, and teachers and education workers
placed
in unntenable working conditions having to teach multiple grades and
ages at the same time.

In the case of mixed grades the regulation stipulates:
"If a class includes one or more pupils enrolled in the primary
division and one or
more pupils enrolled in grade 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8, the class shall have 23
or fewer pupils." There is no additional limiting of a class size
should a split
class occur within grades 4-8 or accommodate both kindergarten and
primary students (eg. kindergarten/grade 1 split).

Secondary Intermediate
and Senior

The definition of "class" in the secondary division,
which is organized differently, is more complicated, involving pupils,
courses, credits,
course cycles and other variables. The full definition as well as the
method for calculating average class size which involves generating
"pupil
credits" and "classroom credits" for all schools can be found in the
regulation.

With respect to secondary school (grades 9-12), the
regulation states: "The average size in each school year of a board's
secondary school
classes shall not exceed 22." Again this is an average, meaning that
some classes would be larger and some smaller than the board-wide
average.
There are two dates for determining secondary class sizes: October 31
and March 31, with school boards required to report their numbers for
both dates to the Ministry of Education by June 30.

Notes

2. A table indicating maximum
average class sizes for
grades 4-8 for the 36 school boards named in the exception can be seen
in
Ontario
Government Regulation 132/12.

Class Size

- Elementary Teachers' Federation of
Ontario -

Introduction

For years, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of
Ontario (ETFO) has lobbied for smaller class sizes.

The research supports the federation's position that,
particularly in the primary grades, students in small classes perform
significantly better than
their peers on reading and mathematics tests. Students in small classes
participate more in school and have fewer discipline problems. When in
small
classes, minority students and inner city students show an even greater
academic improvement.

Further, evidence indicates that manageable class sizes
and class composition in all grades contribute significantly to a
teacher's ability to plan and
program effectively for students, and to devote time to working with
students on an individual basis.

Government Commitment

Primary Class Size
Reduction

The current requirements on primary class size (Grades
1-3) are that each board must organize primary classes so that:

• At least 90 percent of a board's primary classes have
20
or fewer students;
• Up to 10 percent of a board's primary classes can have a
higher cap of up to 23 students.

Each year school boards are required to submit their
primary class sizes to the Ministry of Education. For the 2013-14
school year:

While this indicates the circumstances on the snapshot
date, class sizes will often change as the school year progresses.

The government has exempted classes for students in the
Full Day Early Learning Kindergarten Program (ELPK) from this class
size cap
expectation. There is no cap for full-day kindergarten classrooms.
Instead, the government said that school boards are required to
maintain an average
ELPK class size of 26 across the board. The result is that some ELKP
classes have 30 students while others have 15.

Junior and Intermediate Class
Size Reductions

Junior and intermediate class sizes can vary widely from
school to school and from board to board. The regulatory requirements
are that boards
must have a board average of 24.5 students for Grades 4 to 8.

Studies have shown that the more time the student spends
in small classes, the greater the improvement. To reap the long-term
benefits, students
must spend at least two years in a small class. Students who spent four
years in a small class received the greatest benefit.

Smaller classes cost more. However, fewer students
repeating grades make-up for that cost. More high school graduates with
increased learning
power adds more money to the economy and reduces the cost of social
welfare benefits. (Pate-Bain et. Al. 1999)

In addition to the improvements that show up on
achievement tests, teachers report that "They get to know their
students better, spend less time
on discipline, and are able to provide students with more
individualized instruction. Generally, smaller classes go hand-in-hand
with greater enthusiasm
and achievement among both students and teachers." (Dupuis, 2000)

Individual attention includes more than one-on-one
instruction. A focus on the needs of individual students occurs when
teachers form small groups
and during whole-class instruction. Smaller classes allow teachers to
know and understand the needs of the individual students, allowing
intervention
earlier when problems arise. (Zahorik, 1999)

Molnar (1999) has summarized why small classes are so
effective:

• Children misbehave less because of the family
atmosphere
and quick intervention by teachers.
• Teachers spend more time on direct instruction and less
on classroom management.
• Classes include more "hands-on" activities, although
most instruction remains teacher -- not student -- centred.
• Students become more actively engaged in learning than
peers in large classes.
• Teachers of small classes "burn out" less often.

Recent research into the Ontario Primary Class Size
confirms that "class size reduction can provide the environment in
which teachers can interact
with individual students more frequently and use a greater variety of
instructional strategies, create more opportunities for higher-order
co-construction
of meaning by students, and interact more frequently with other
teachers and adults in support of classroom teaching. The evidence
suggests that
students learn more, are more engaged, and are less disruptive. Parents
of children in smaller classes perceive improvements in their
children's school
experiences." (Bascia 2010)

Conclusion

Elementary teachers support the reduction of class size
in the primary grades. However, the government must do more to support
students
throughout their elementary school years. In public school boards in
Ontario, funding for elementary school students still lags behind that
for secondary
students. Secondary students are funded at $5,763 per student.
Elementary students are funded at $5,424 per primary student and $4,491
per junior
/intermediate student -- a difference of $1,272 for a student moving
from Grade 8 to Grade 9. Equalizing this Foundation Grant would make an
important difference for children in their formative years.

Pate-Bain, Helen, B. DeWayne Fulton, and Jayne
Boyd-Zaharias (1999), "Effects of Class Size Reduction in the Early
Grades (K-3) on High School
Performance," Health and Education Research Operative Services (HEROS)
http://www.heros-inc.org/ [removed link on April 30, 2012]